About your Search

20130201
20130228
STATION
MSNBC 11
MSNBCW 11
CSPAN 5
CSPAN2 5
FBC 2
KNTV (NBC) 2
WBAL (NBC) 2
CNN 1
CNNW 1
KTVU (FOX) 1
WRC 1
WTTG 1
LANGUAGE
English 66
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 66 (some duplicates have been removed)
. they came up with instead a very, very weak answer. harry reid caved into the republicans on this, i hate to say it. sol many democrats were saying this is going to be fine because now, we all agree that you need 60. we didn't get rid of it. they can use it. they don't have to come to the floor and talk at that talk, but it's going to work. it's going to work because republicans have greedp agreed they will filibuster for stuff that's really important. when harry reid and mitch mcconnell agree this is really worth it. damn if, we said at the time this was phony, it was not going to work, it was not going to make any change. republicans were going to abuse it. they would never abide by that agreement. two weeks ago. republicans trotted it out yesterday, put a filibuster on the nomination of chuck hagel to be our next secretary of defense, and they won. you need 60 votes to get over it. and the most they could get with the democrats and four republicans was 58 votes t he lost by one vote. harry reid ended up having to vote no. that way, by voting know he
unprecedented before. ♪ world news tonight. ♪ >> can we talk about harry reid's gift? harry reid owns what happened with this fill buster. this is all him. he had the chance. not only did he promise he would do something about it, he had the chance to do something about it on the first day of the senate session. he could have done it with a 51% vote for filibuster reform and he didn't and we paid the price for it. stephanie: i couldn't believe he used the word shocking here. senator harry reid yesterday on the senate floor. >> shocking that my republican colleagues would leave the nation without a fully empowered secretary of defense during all the things we have going on in the world, including a war. stephanie: also shocked to find out there's gambling going on in vegas. >> few leon panetta has to go to the nato summit in brussels. he's like george bailey. he's never getting out of bedford falls. i got big plans. i love her. she's a peach. >> because republicans have a punish a republican for the crime of being right about iraq. stephanie: exactly. this talking voice memo, filibuster wil
by harry reid to the filibuster. let's listen. >> the filibuster of senator hag hagel's nomination is unprecedenced. i repeat never in the history of our country has a secretary of defense nominee been filibustered. never, ever. >> has this ever happened before? anything similar? or are we talking about the details to secretary of defense nominees? >> it is unpress denned for a secretary of defense nominee. the closest example to a cabinet-level position being filibustered or attempted to be filibustered is steven johnson, epa secretary under president bush. some tried to filibuster him, they couldn't get enough votes. that wasn't technically a cabinet-level position or an actual cabinet position this is actually the first time that a cabinet secretary has been filibustered, and republicans don't want to call it a filibuster, that's the practical effect of what we see here today. >> let's take a listen to what senator john mccain said about the issues that republicans have about chuck hagel. >> to be honest with you, neil, it goes back to there is a lot of ill will toward senator h
. nonetheless, harry reid, given the fact that we're facing that looming deadline on friday, he says the republicans can fix it all if they do the one thing they absolutely won't do, which makes this impossible, and that is jack up taxes. >> those cuts will go forward. they are all cuts. i think we need some revenue to take the pressure off everybody. the american people agree with me. until there's some agreement on revenue, i believe we should go ahead with the sequester. >>gretchen: it's interesting because the president talks about compromise. i know time goes by fast. but the republicans just did compromise and they did raise taxes. in fact, everyone's taxes went up because you're all paying social security again now. the tax-free holiday is gone. it's amazing to me that this messaging is still out there, that this is all about taxes. by the way, senator reid, americans don't agree with you totally. here's a rasmussen poll. the best way to slash the deficit, reduce taxes alone, only 6%. reduce by cutting spending: 45%. a combination, more spending cuts than tax hikes: 36%. >>st
. >> that is classic harry reid. he said that when why do something he doesn't like. if we agreed to everything he wanted to do he might be happy. nevertheless, this is a serious situation when you talk about a secretary of defense. this is the most important choice a president can make. i think he's made a choice even democrats scratching their head and they were embarrassed also about the performance, unacceptable performance of chuck hagel before the armed services committee . i think it deserves at least a little time to continue to look at what his position and going and leadership he can or can't provide. i don't know what the democratics will circle the wagon and support the president. but many of them have real concerns over whether it a good choice. >> we'll see if they go public with those. senator dan coats, for your time. >> thank you. >> pakistani officials called a deadly bombing a failure of security and intelligence agencies. security official it is did not act because they are scared of what the terrorist may do to them. 81 people were kim 61 others were injured. a mass funeral is
whether i vote for that budget or vote against that budget. the fact that harry reid's senate and that harry reid himself has gotten in the way of a former really good budget chairman not passing a budget is shameful. and now you have the president saying, well, i'm against the sequester cuts. well, okay, great. what are you going to replace them with? i don't know. no specifics. they never give specifics. >> so i don't know, because i was working on my column and talking to a couple different people in the white house yesterday. and they were talking about the president's statement yesterday. and he is saying to republicans, come meet with him. anytime. they can come right now. and he will work on a deal. it can be a smaller deal if we can't make the sequestration deadline. and it can involve spending and revenue and a mix, and that they haven't taken their toys and walked away. they've offered $400 billion in health care cuts and other things. the republicans have other ideas, come on over to the white house. put them on the table. let's make a small deal. if we can't get to
to get the congress to introduce legislation, you know harry reid will do whatever he wants in the senate and he ought to do that. but the reason he's saying this actually, it's certainly a stop to the left and thanking them for the vote in the election and doesn't realize an important thing, 62 million people voted against him and because they're concerned about this and he himself did very little. a lot of news reports that he thinks his greatest failing in his first term is a lack of action on climate change and he spoke little about it on the campaign trail because he knows the way americans feel about that. they're not for 2 billion more dollars to go to green energy projects, new committee called the energy security trust. we already have great green initiatives in the private sector and things are working. if you tell the public, give them the action between hugging a tree and hugging a wallet, the wallet always wins and be careful. >> and we're aware that the president got more votes than the people who voted against the president. this is a situation where the climate change issu
the gridlock. but of course, harry reid caved. that's another story in itself. so nothing has really changed. all you have to do is look at the chuck hagel situation in the senate to see just how bad everything is right now. but i want you to imagine liberals, just imagine what it would be like if we had 60 senators like this. >> i'm really concerned that too big to fail has become too big for trial. that just seems wrong to me. >> it sure does. newly elected senator from massachusetts elizabeth warren is doing what she promised to do. she is ready to lead the way on accountability for the financial industry, and for good reason. you see, the federal reserve says the 2008 financial collapse cost this country 38.8% of its net worth. despite the massive fraud and recklessness of the banks, the number of executives prosecuted for this crisis zero. before today, there is no accountability. now, the frank/dodd financial regulation bill was watered down and not fully implemented. senator warren used her first banking committee hearing to take on the regulators who were supposed to be enforcing the
with him that there is a do nothing congress, but it is the senate, harry reid who is the do nothing. they have passed legislation for the last two years in the house of representatives, since the republicans had control. what happens? nothing. the senate sits on it and does nothing. second i want to -- want to talk about fiber. there is technology available today where each individual home could be self-sufficient -- self-sufficient with its own energy sell. what is amazing is if we have 500 years of natural gas, there it is. nobody can attack us if every household has energy. we eliminate the grid because everyone has the wrong grade. there is a company in california that is powering e day using methane gas. that company is blue energy of california. host: the president signed an executive order last week regarding cyber security. some news about that, they intended to improve information sharing to establish a framework of cyber security best practices. "the white house spent the last several months crafting the order after congress failed to pass cyber security legislation last y
rational responsible way. and goes over to senate harry reid and kill the bill and you didn't hear that from congressman ellison, there's not truth from the other side and that's why both sides-- >> both sides say there isn't truth coming from the other side. and here is what i see when i see that exchange, i think this guy, do we have this guy to sit republicans and sit down and strike a deal on this? i'm sure there's some obstinate republican on the other side who is also going to give him a tough time. it's just a turn off. and these are elected representatives and people who trust to get something done for us? >> well, i think that the bottom line here is that what people really want to know is why-- what is up with the sequester, i think what people really want is for the sequester not to move forward and i think that's what the conversation needs to be about. if the sequester needs to move forward the estimates are that the 750,000-- you're going into talking points. >> no, i'm not. >> speaking to my point you can get the talking points online. >> this is not talking points.
hagel, here is what harry reid said, the majority out of leader in the senate, what about this who filibuster process. >> i guess to be able to run for senate as a republican most place of the country, you need to have a resume that says i helped bill filibuster one of the president's nominees. >> what about it? >> first, i have to respectfully disagree with the lieutenant governor because he left out a couple of key facts. key fact number one, the sequester was created by the obama administration. so people are frustrated because you have a set of politicians on both sides unwilling to deal with something they created because it was a way for them to kick the can down the road. secondly, with regard to the hagel nomination, unfortunately, chuck hagel is dealing with his own poor performance as a nominee now. all the way back to your original question. there are many people in the democratic party who don't agree either there are many people in the democratic party who are in disagreement right now on what too do about gun control legislation. on the issue of immigration specifical
to lead harry reid. look, we've tried 60 ways to sundown and, you know, i don't know what they got going on over at the senate, but i wish they would get together with the president, pass what they think they can pass, and then we would be glad to take a look at it. we've certainly shown -- >> you know as well as i do they're not going to be able to pass anything with 60 votes. they may be able to pass some things with 50, 52, 53 votes. they won't be able to pass anything with 60 votes, and should that be the marker on something like this? is this such an important -- >> for sure. >> -- thing it should take 60? that 41 -- >> no. i'm saying what should be the marker is the senate ought to be able to pass something. look, for better or for worse, the president -- >> so senate republicans need to get involved in this? >> no, what i'm saying is they need to work it out over there. i'm not going to tell the senate how to do their business, but they -- where br they start looking for us to lead them we've passesed two bills. the president passes nothing. the president's party controls the sena
: >> r eporter: and by the way, the senate democratic leader, harry reid, said that he would have his first meeting in quite a while with speaker boehner later this week. david and liz? david: all right. well, you asked the right question. it wasn't for want of trying that you didn't get an answer of some kind. thank you, peter. we'll see more of you tonight. and tonight it all begins at 8 p.m. live coverage of the state of the union address hosted by my buddy, he is back and roaring, neil cavuto, delivering -- well, he's not delivering the state of the union, but perhaps someday he will. you never know with neil. nothing's going to stop him. liz: neil for president. we will have much more on the state of the union and the president's plan for economic growth when steve forbes joins us later this hour. david: also, where are companies turning to raise money? we're going to take a close look at why public debt and equity issues are falling at private -- and private issues are rising. this is a very interesting story about where companies are getting cash. details in a moment. ♪ today
's be honest about why harry reid did that. they were going in recess. if reid held the vote on friday and they got cloture, they would not have had a final vote on him until saturday or sunday. he was accommodating the republicans and the democrats' senate schedule. >> oh, no. >> let's be very clear. >> what's so wrong with voting after the recess? what's so wrong with -- >> why not vote now? is he qualified now? if he is, he's qualified today, thursday and tomorrow. he's qualified. if he's not qualified, vote against him. >> let's take a listen right now with both of you to john mccain on thursday. kristen, i'll get you to respond right after. >> to be honest with you, it goes back to there's a lot of illwill towards senator hagel because when he was a republican he attacked president bush mercilessly, at one point said he was the worst president since herbert hoover, said that the surge was the worst mrunter since the vietnam war, which is nonsense. and was very anti his own party and own people. people don't forget that. you can disagree but if you're disagreeable, people don't for
with the nra is harry reid. i don't know if he's still a member, he was a member at one point. i wonder if you characterize the nra relationship with harry reid own the years and also talk about what you have communicated about over the past few weeks with the man who will decide on whether a gun restriction law is bill is brought to the floor of the senate. >> i'm not our lobbyist. any recent conversations with senator reid would not be really within my -- i have not personally talked to senator reid. we had a relatively friendly relationship with the senator over time. we did not endorse him for re-election. we didn't endorse his opponent either. we supported him at the primary level last time. he has been, when firearms legislation has not been the priority of his president, he's a partisan leader, she's been responsive to constituents in nevada and has been relatively friendly on second amendment issues. he's under incredible pressure right now. he's got, as any member of congress or senator does, he has his own beliefs. he has the views and the demands of his constituents on the one hand,
mentioned democrats better members of your organization it seems maybe the most prominent is harry reid. or maybe at one point* for my kid you characterize your relationship with him over the years and talk about what you communicated over the past few weeks with the man who will decide whether a gun restrictions lot is brought to the floor? >> i am not our lobbyist so in recent conversation with not be within my, i have not personally talked with senator reid. we have a relatively friendly relationship over time. we did not endorse him for reelection or his opponent but we did support him that the primary level last time. when firearms legislation has not been a priority, after all he is a partisan leader he has been responsive to his constituents of nevada and relatively friendly on second amendment issues. he is tendered bridal pressure right now because as any member of congress, he has his own beliefs, the views of his constituents, of the pressure as the party leader, the president of the other, where harry reid and that is in nobody's guess and that is a guessing game right now.
out on this question, i agree with senator harry reid. when it came to the nomination of john bold, and in a of members of this body asked for additional disclosures from john bolton, and those disclosures were not forthcoming. harry reid said the following, the administration stonewalling has no one had the effect of slowing down the confirmation process, it has also put a further cloud over this individual and perhaps unnecessarily, raised the impression that the nominee and the white house have something to hide. i don't know if mr. hagel has received funds directly or indirectly from foreign sources, from extreme sources, but his refusal to provide disclosure i think is highly troubling. and i would suggest every member of this committee and every member of this body should stand together and at least insisting on adequate disclosure. i'll make one final point. some have asked, would you make the same request of a republican nominee? i'll point out you can chuck hagel is a republican. i don't know him personally, unlike many members of this committee. isa limit was record, and
leader harry reid. so we have a very good relationship. and i think that's one that we're going to maintain through this thing. and i would say that senator reid on numerous occasions was concerned about republican nominations. during the bush era we had steven johnson. steven johnson, who incidentally, was a democrat for the e.p.a. administrator. i thought he'd be good. i think that there are several democrats that thought he would not be good, and so harry reid did what he's supposed to do. he interceded in behalf of the democrats who opposed him. well, they had a 60-vote margin. that's fine. they got 61 votes. dirk kempthorne was one that there was objection to. he was up for -- most of you remember him, a former senator from utah. he was up for the secretary of interior, and there are some people objecting to him. and of course that was back during the bush administration. he was nominated and he went ahead and he was confirmed. it was a 60-vote margin. there's nothing unusual about this. getting back to steven johnson, this is even more analogous to what we have what now, b
comes up at the end of the month? >> listen if harry reid wanted to bring it up he could cancel a vacation and come in next week if he wanted. the real easy answer is immediately provide the information. there is a history with the administration and the majority party not providing all of the information. they will provide a little bit here, a little bit there. hopefully you will forget about it. bottom line if they want to get this done, they should sit down with the concerned senators and actually provide the appropriate information. that is pretty simple. bill: this is what we heard. at least two of the speeches apparently were made, four, maybe five years ago that were not provided. was it intentional for him not to present these speeches because they thought it would be controversial? >> i'm not sure, certainly. but they are, people are aware of them and they need to be part of the entire package that is being presented. and the senators have an absolute right to get this information. bill: senator lindsey graham has been hot on this trail and his big issue is not having t
associated with the nra is harry reid. i don't know if he still is a member, but i wonder if you could characterize the relationship with harry reid over the years and also talk about what you have communicated about with the man who will decide on whether a gun restriction law is brought to the floor of the senate. >> i am not our lobbyists, so any recent conversations with a senator reid would not be really within my --i have not talked with senator reid. we have had a relatively friendly relationship with the senator over time. we did not endorse him with reelection. we did not endorse his opponent either. we did support him at the primary level last time. he has been when firearms legislation has not been at the priority of his leader, he has been relatively friendly on second amendment issues. he is under incredible pressure because he has got come as any member of congress or senate does, he has his own beliefs. he has the views and demands of his constituents on the one hand and the pressure he faces as a party leader and from his president on the other. where harry reid ends up
that a cabinet secretary needed 60 votes and both of those bush nominees facing harry reid and democrats and environmental agency head. both had to meet 60 vote threshold. now it has happened to hagel. the third time in ten years. so it's not unprecedented. my question to you, why rush it? >> because the department of defense is responsible for our military. we are currently in conflict right now. i think this is something that has to deal with national security. you really need to get serious and get to work here. we can't be talking about things that are not relevant. they are asking for information about benghazi and chuck hagel had nothing to do with benghazi. if you wanted questions about that you need to talk on other people. >> heather: they got one of those questions answered, that is whether or not president obama himself personally called libyan officials on the night of september 11th but the respect on hagel to get a simple answer which we now know the answer was no. brad? >> you are absolutely right. we had some leverage over the white house and hagel was used at that levera
. it was obama and jack plouffe and rod who went to the tktic leaders harry reid and this is the solution, but everyone has their fingerprints on this. >> we're getting video of the exact moment a kansas city restaurant exploded. missouri investigators releasing this surveillances footage. jj's restaurant was completely destroyed in a ball of fire and an employee killed in the blast felt up to a mile away and 15 injured and as many as six remain hospitalized. aerial views after the beloved restaurant was reduced to rubble. investigators say construction crews struck a natural gas line triggering the explosion. serious new questions for nasa after the agency failed to protect a massive explosion of a different type. the cosmic kind. here is video of the meteor that blew up with the force they say of 30 atomic bombs, injuring a thousand people and now a top republican is demanding to know why nasa never saw it coming and asking whether our space agency would be able to protect america if a meteor were headed here. and joining me an associate professor of physics at purdue science. and this
is scheduled to meet tomorrow wi pelosi and boehner and mitch mcconnell and harry reid but that meeting will come after these automatic spending cuts become law. but some republicans are pointing to positive news. they say that all of these automatic cuts would be re-- could be reversed before they take effect because a long-term spending bill is due march 27th. i'm kyla campbell, ktvu channel 2 news. >>> let's bring you up to date on some of the other top stories we're following for you right now. >> translator: thank you, all, and good night. [ cheers ] >> you saw it live right here on ktvu. that was pope benedict xvi's final public message as pope. the pope spoke from the balcony from the papal retreat in italy. he will formally resign in two hours from now. he thanked the world's $1.2 billion catholics for their love, prayers and support. >>> back here at home, police in santa cruz will go back to work this morning after mourning the loss of two veteran detectives killed in the line of duty. tara moriarty is joining us from santa cruz now with some new information about the death of
to cut back on the number used. after harry reid said the republicans were filibustering hagel, he called for a vote yesterday. cloture, filibuster, what is it? >> cloture is a maneuver to limit debate to essentially end a filibuster. >> to get to the vote already? >> to get to the vote. a filibuster is where you're delaying and you keep talking or keep having procedural delays to keep something from passing or from being -- someone from being confirmed. i'll say this, is one of the conundrums the republicans have been having is that sometimes senator reid will actually file a motion for cloture to limit debate when there hasn't actually been a filibuster present. >> some are crying foul on that. back to the nomination, is it a smoke screen of sorts to bring up issues that you mentioned, talking about the attack in libya, and other issues before? have we not gone through these sort of hearings, or is this legitimate, legitimate concerns republicans need answers before a vote can happen? >> well, this is the way the process works. i was talking a couple of days ago to senator lindsey graha
reid yesterday filed a motion to limit debate and force vote on the hagel nomination. harry reid said today, though, that republicans are mounting a full-scale filibuster of the hagel nomination. he said that there's never been a filibuster of a secretary of defense in the country's history. discussion on the nomination continues. senator leahy on the senate floor now and that is live on c-span2. also coming up live on booktv.org later today at 7:00 p.m. eastern, stephen hess who wrote "whatever happened to the washington reporters: 1978-2012." he interviewed journalist who is were covered the federal government and washington and 30 years later talked to 283 of those to find out where things went on in their career and the fields they covered. that discussion with stephen hess gets under way at 7:00 and that's at booktv.org. >> we have a habit in this country, if i may say, now of glossing over presidents. we decided, some people, that they're balancedying -- bald eagles and they have to be treated as symbols of the country. what that means, though, is you have -- you have a smoothin
, chris, something that stood out to me is the backbone of harry reid. had he perhaps more of a backbone during these filibuster negotiations, and filibuster reform, perhaps he wouldn't be sitting here having this discussion anyway, and some of the fault, maybe a large portion of the fault lay with harry reid for us even having this discussion this morning? >> well, in fairness, look, both sides have threatened to do something about the filibuster and both sides are reluctant to do it, because quite frankly, they know the once that were in the majority now know at some point they'll be in the minority and vice versa and you know, there is some deference made to some rules of the senate and one of the things they all say if we'd stop the filibuster we'd become just like the house and i promise you on in congress on capitol hill that's not a compliment. >> is there any merit to what democrats are saying about the g.o.p. blocking this and putting the country at risk 'cause it's such an important security post? >> no, i mean, for one thing, the senate democrats said well, we're not going to
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 66 (some duplicates have been removed)